Quad-Core or 12-Core for FCP 7.0.3 and AfterFX?

Hi Folks, I am ready to buy a new MacPro. My main use is FCP 7.0.3 and AfterFX.
We all know 12-core is obviously much better, but Is there such a great difference on performance, especially rendering time on both softwares runing on the 12-core rather then on the Quad-core? Even if we pack a Quad-core with lots of RAM and a better video board? Any other crucial items to go for?
Thanks for your help!!!!

You likely won't see that much difference between a 4 core and a 12 core with FCP7 as it is a 32bit program and is not optimized for multicore processors. (it also can not make use of more than 4GB RAM) While SnowLeopard, Lion and now ML are full 64 bit Operating Systems, they can only do so much with legacy code. More important for FCP responsiveness is disk throughput.
On the other hand, the current version of AfterEffects is 64bit and can take advantage of a multi-core CPU. It also can take great advantage of all the RAM available.
One other point - don't forget the GPU. I'm running a nVidia Quadro 4000 (instead of an ATI card) in an 8 core MacPro and both Premiere and AE take full advantage of it for processing acceleration.
Have fun.
x
edit- The benefit of increasing the number of processors is not linear - that is - 8 processors will not be twice as fast as 4. In some cases, the increasing complexity of managing the overhead can outstrip the benefit of the additional cores. If a program is not optimized for it, more cores wlll not speed things up. And, in the case of the 12 core machine, you are paying a huge premium for non-measurable performance.

Similar Messages

Recent Software Update - Recommended for FCP X, Motion 5 and Compressor 4 Users

There is a recent Software Update ("ProApps Quicktime Codecs") that is recommended for the FCP X, Motion 5 and Compressor 4. Should FCP 7/FCS 3 Users download this update as well, or avoid to prevent any conflicts?

I have one boot drive with 10.6.8 and FCS 3, and a 2nd boot drive with 10.9 and the FCP X Trial - best to avoid any problems. Everything is smooth as glass at the moment.

I have a Mac Pro 4,1 quad core intel Xeon running mac OSX 10.6.8 and I have just moved studios and now need to use the Internet wirelessly but there's no airport facilities on this model can anyone tell me what model of airport card I would need for this

I have a Mac Pro 4,1 quad core intel Xeon running mac OSX 10.6.8 and I have just moved studios and now need to use the Internet wirelessly but there's no airport facilities on this model can anyone tell me what model of airport card I would need for this mac

Instead of getting a wireless card for the Mac Pro, you might want to consider getting an 802.11ac wireless bridge device that would enable you to connect more than one device to it by Ethernet cable and to eventually take advantage of the faster 802.11ac wireless standard.

New Mac Pro for FCP - should I do 8 cores or faster clock?

I'm setting up a FCP station to replace a 2.3 GHz dial G5 and I'm wondering which would be better - an 8-core 2.26 GHz or a 4-core 2.93 GHz Mac Pro.
Right now the G5 is most likely to choke up when rendering/auto rendering within FCP.
Based on price and the trends in parallel processing, I'm guessing I should go with the 8-core, but that old-school MHz addict in me keeps second guessing. I'd appreciate any advice/insights!

American Flannel wrote:
I heard the new four core mac pro dusts my 2.8ghz 8 core in benchmarking
That's not exactly true. I've been doing some research in the past 24 hours and it seems that the benchmarks (like Geekbench) in which the new 4-core "dusts" the previous 8-core are those which include memory tests. Memory tests will run much faster on the new Nehelems because they use faster RAM.
But the early 2008 8-cores are scoring higher on some benchmarks which score single and multi threaded tasks and don't get hung up in cumbersome RAM tests.
As for the current 4-cores versus the current 8-cores, it seems that the 2.96 GHz 4-cores are beating the more expensive 2.26 8-core procs in single-threaded operations. In FCP, only Compressor is optimized for multithreading, so I'm guessing the real benefits of the extra cores won't be visible until both snow leopard and a new version of FCP.
Why a new version of FCP? Because from what I've gleaned, Grand Central will not make single-threaded operations run better, but will give developers tools to more easily utilize parallel processing. So it would seem FCP will need a significant upgrade to take advantage of what 10.6 has to offer. Don't know if it'll be a .5 or a full version upgrade, but I'm betting on one of them.
Please don't take this as gospel... if I'm wrong about any of this, I'd love to hear a contrary opinion.
Message was edited by: Rey Mo

Quad core or Hex core for Premiere pro

I am about to take the plunge and upgrade my aging edit PC
Having read some very useful posts on what to get at various budgets but I am still left with a few questions.
I edit mainly AVCHD footage on CS5 and compress to h264 for vimeo or intanet, I have a GoPro 3 but this is rearly used for anything serious but I do intend to upgrade to CS6 in the future.
Do I need a hexcore if I am not burning Blu-ray discs and am unlikely to edit 4k in the near future?
If I buy a quad core machine will I have a dramatic increase in rendering and compression time over the hex core?
The quad core will save more than the cost of a Matrox MXO2 Mini MAX if I do need h264 accelaration but this may still not be as fast, has anyone had experience of the Matrox compared to a hex core machine?
The specs only give a guide and practical experience available on this forum seems the best advice.
I look forward to your replies
Aidan

Aidan,
I'd say it depends on your price point. Premiere Pro gets great performance by taxing much of a system including cpu, gpu, drives, bus (motherboard), and memory.
If you are wanting to build a desktop system yourself for under $1700, then I'd say Z77 4-core would be excellent. You can edit AVCHD for sure, but you would be more limited for complex projects.
If you are willing to spend more, the x79 chipset and i7-3930k 6-core is an excellent way to go.
Search around this site for awhile and you will find various build lists with lots of passionate comments on component selection for a wide variety of price points.
Regards,
Jim

Have a 3.06GHz intel core 2 duo for FCP?

I all... I have a 3.06GHz intel core 2 duo IMac that I'm using for FCP.
At 3+ years old, I'm wondering if it's time to invest in a new Imac?
GHz speeds haven't gone up by a lot but I have to believe that speeds have?
Are render times in FCP or Compressor substantially improved to justify this purchase?
Thanks so much for your help!
- BK

If you want flexibility then consider moving up to a mac pro, that'll give you a solid base for a performance boost. Unless theres anything wrong with your current machine, you might want to wait a month or so and see what kind of horsepower the new version FCPX plays best with.
cheers
Andy

New Mac Pro, Quad-Core or 8-Core?

I need to decide whether to purchase a Quad-core or 8-core new Mac Pro. Using the computer for commercial and fine art work, in Photoshop CS4, Lightroom 2.0, and InDesign CS4. (No video.) Is there any advantage in the 8-core?

Photoshop probably won't benefit much from twice the cores - but they will help when running multiple apps simultaneously. I have a first generation Mac Pro 2.66 and am (still) perfectly happy with the performance.
About the only app in your list that would probably benefit is Lightroom (or ACR), when processing RAW files. My four cores are fairly pegged when processing files from a 1Ds MK II.

Quad Core or Eight Core?

I have a G5 PowerPC Dual 2.0 and wanting to upgrade to a MacPro. My question is should I buy a Quad-Core or 8-Core? I could purchase a 2.66 Quad-Core "Nehalem" MacPro which is 800.00 less money than the 8-Core. Who benefits from 8 cores? I run Lightroom & Photoshop CS4 and primarily use the computer for photography, I occasionally render video but that is not very often. I also could look at the 2008 MacPro's but I have been told the "Nehalem" processors are a big improvement. My thought was this.....if the software does not take advantage of the extra "core" technology then going from 2.26 to 2.66 would be a good speed bump. Any advise is greatly appreciated........
Thanks in advance,
Kevin

Well I'd like to clarify a few things...
I remain very, very happy with my purchase. I have the latest version of Final Cut Studio on my Dual-Quad Mac. I am presently learning Motion, which ought to give Adobe's After Effects a good run for its money. I have been using After Effects extensively at work, where I work on a Pee Cee (A Dell XPS 600 that is about five years old and has 4GB of system RAM out of which the applications tend to see a maximum of 2GB).
I remain committed to the concept of buying as much processor as one can possibly afford, despite Joerollerblade's comments. He's correct in that spending the extra money for a slight processor increase is expensive. But he's not valuing his time as a professional. If he saves just one hour a day in processing time for his workflow, he's paying off the processor cost pretty quickly, assuming he is charging a professional rate.
As to Final Cut Pro, Apple's applications are written under the Cocoa framework and take advantage of Snow Leopard's Grand Central Dispatch for sending multiple threads to multiple processors. Thus, the more processors you have, the faster the application will work for processor-intensive tasks.
Now for some clarification.
Adobe's applications are all written under the Carbon API. Apple, when they released OS X in 2000 told developers that Cocoa was the way they ought to put together their applications and that Carbon was a transitional API to help them get from Apple's earlier System Software to the new Unix-based OS X. Apple has continued support for Carbon in order to support infrequently-updated legacy applications. We're talking applications like Leister Productions' Reunion (though I note they have recently updated their software to version 9, which supports Snow Leopard). Back in 2000, Adobe released Photoshop 6. There have been five releases of Photoshop since, which works out to a new release every two years. Surely, the folks at Adobe can develop for a new API in 9 years.
Carbon applications cannot take advantage of Apple's Grand Central Dispatch in Snow Leopard, so what Adobe has to do is detect and code for multiple processors and multiple cores in their application the hard way. And Adobe's programmers (as talented as they are) can hardly be expected to write code for eight processor cores when most computers out there have no more than four (and many have only two). Apple has just released its first all-in-one Mac with four cores at a very attractive price point. The way computers will get faster in the future is to add more cores.
But Adobe is sticking with Old Skool.They're essentially stuck in code that worked under System 8 and 9. Photoshop 11 (CS4) for Windows runs in 64-bit but, on the Mac, it's still a 32-bit application and that is probably because it's trapped in Carbon (kind of like how Jabba the Hut encased Han Solo). Frankly, it's time for Adobe to come out of the cold and have a nice, steaming hot cuppa Cocoa.
So, if we're assuming Adobe applications, does the Eight-Core Nehalem system give you advantages?
I read the review of Apple's new Quad and Eight-Core Nehalems in Macworld and they tested the two computers using their "Speedmark" test. The stock Eight-Core comes in with a Speedmark rating of 343 to the Quad-Core's rating of 348. Macworld explained that raw processor speed alone seems to place the Quad ahead of the Eight because:
"Many applications have a difficult time using even four processors efficiently, the advantage of having eight was not apparent in most of the application tests that make up our Speedmark benchmark test suite. In fact, the new eight-core system posted a lower Speedmark score than the quad-core system, and bested it in just one test—Cinema 4D, where it posted a 28 percent faster time."
I'm betting Adobe's Photoshop was one of those applications. Since the stock Eight-Core Mac Pro runs 15% slower than the stock Quad-Core, it's the raw processor speed that gave it the bump in performance over the Eight-Core. That is reason enough to upgrade the Eight-Core system's processor. The second reason why it's a good idea to get the more expensive computer is RAM.
The Quad-Core Mac Pro has slots for a maximum of 8GB of 1,066MHz DDR3 SDRAM modules. The Eight-Core can fit 32GB. That's eight times as much RAM in the more expensive computer, which will lend itself to a longer life. If you are using Photoshop to make really large images or you are using Photoshop with Adobe's suite of applications that include Illustrator and InDesign and you need to keep all of these applications open so that you can quickly modify images to suit your publication, 32GB of system RAM will come in handy as time goes on.
My current system has 8 GB installed in it by Apple. That's as much as you can fit into the Quad-Core and I'm all set for another 8GB as the demands of my software increase (which they will).
To jthunders particular question, I have Final Cut Studio on my system. I am running Leopard and not Snow Leopard and this is because Intuit's Quicken 2007 will not run on Snow Leopard. When Intuit finally updates their software, I shall upgrade my OS (assuming I do not have any current projects running and assuming I have a complete clone of my boot drive with a good installation). I routinely have both Motion and Final Cut Pro open at the same time and have had Motion, Final Cut Pro and Color open at the same time for a stretch. I was hitting my hard drive for extra RAM, but the applications handled what was needed with no problems. I contrast that to being at work on the Pee Cee running Windows XP Pro, Adobe's Premiere Pro 1.5 and After Effects 6.5. If I open up Premiere Pro and then open up AE to do something quick, Premiere slows to a crawl until it collects enough memory to get done. Typically, I need to exit Premiere Pro in order to free up enough RAM for the system to get out of its own way when I'm working on anything complex. I'm editing in NTSC (Standard Definition) in Premiere Pro and AE. I can easily work on HD video in Motion and Final Cut Pro.
Back at the beginning of March, Macworld quoted Envisioneering Group's Richard Doherty:
"Apple’s decision to upgrade the Mac Pro falls in line with the growing adoption of high-definition video. Apple is delivering all the processing power it can get for users to edit real-time HD video through the upgraded Mac Pro workstations."
So if all jthunders intends on doing is SD video, he's probably fine with what he has. But if he intends to move forward with HD video on his system, the Mac Pro line (and arguably the new Quad-core iMac) will handle the processing requirements of HD projects.
I would mention one caveat here. Mac Pros can take expansion cards and, if you want to edit HD video, you're going to need a RAID array to play back HD. The only way you can play back uncompressed HD on an iMac is by connecting a RAID array to the built-in Firewire 800 port on the iMac. You cannot choose SAS or SCSI or a Fibre Channel solution on an iMac for video.

I need to find an Unibody 2.66GHz core i7 logic board for my MacBook Pro 15"

I need to find an Unibody 2.66GHz core i7 logic board for my MacBook Pro 15". Where can I find it?

have you searched the internet? perhaps ifixit.com might have one.

Buying a iMac 24" Intel Core 2 Duo processor for CS2 & CS3?

I have been a PC and MAC person for many years, but would like to move to one platform, MAC.
I am a photographer that has been using a XP x64 PRO box (AMD 64 3800+, 4GB DDR Ram, Dual Monitors) for a couple years in my photography sorting and light editing and am wondering if an Intel iMac 24 could handle my daily tasks; they are as follows: These are all RAW files from a Nikon D2x or D200.
1. Loading the daily shots from a shoot using a card/media reader
2. Open and make the picks within Bridge
3. Open keeps in Camera RAW, I make 98% of my adjustments in Camera RAW.
4. Then open the ones that need alittle more tweaking into CS2 as 16bit, to make very minor corrections such as dodge and burn or a B&W conversion using channels; save as PSD/DNG.
5. I may print some of these to and Epson 1280.
Since I do not use any major filters and do very little heavy loading in CS2, will a iMac 24 handle this type of work.
Regards,
Johnny Kurtz

Well, thank you to all who responded.
I ordered my iMac 24 and it should have been here today, but snow has slowed my delivery to Utah, luckily it is coming new from the East Bay of San Francisco and will be here tomorrow.
I went with a 24" iMac 2.16 Intel Dual Core 2/2G RAM/500 G HD/Nvidia 7600GT256, and will be running dual monitor via the mini DVI port. I am also taking 3 SATA II drives from my PC and running them externally, firewire & USB. I am watching eBay and other sources for the 2GB DDR chip so I will have 3GB DDR soon.
I will run my PC version of CS2 until CS3 ships and will do a cross-upgrade to the Mac version then, also looking at Lightroom for culling the herd of photographs. I don't like the reviews and Apple Discussions about Aperture, maybe version 2.0.
Cheers,
Johnny

Core limits to 3 for Trial account?

I have got access for Azure trial WindowsAzurePass.com
trying to setup SP2013 virtual machines using the below article:
blogs . technet . com/b/keithmayer/archive/2013/01/07/step-by-step-build-a-free-sharepoint-2013-lab-in-the-cloud-with-windows-azure-31-days-of-servers-in-the-cloud-part-7-of-31.aspx
based on my understanding, I cannot use a trial account to create SP2013 setup on azure. the reason being it needs more cores to be allocated for SQL Server and SP2013. overall we can use just 3 cores!
can someone give me a confirm response that trial accounts cannot be used to setup SP2013 on azure?

Hi Cee,
Base on my experience, we could use 20 cores on 200$ free trial. About your description, I suggest you could contact to azure support to get more details.
For this question Please contact support team by creating a support ticket at
http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/support/contact/
Or if that doesn't work because you don't have an active subscription you will need to contact general customer support to have them create a support ticket for you
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/customer-service-phone-numbers?wa=wsignin1.0
Please try it.
Regards,
Will
We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
Click
HERE to participate the survey.

Is a Pentium(R) Dual-Core processor good enough for Adobe Premiere Pro?

is a Pentium(R) Dual-Core processor good enough for Adobe Premiere Pro? Under system requirements, Adobe listed Intel Core Duo...not sure if this is just as good?

Hi Brian,
Good question. Keep in mind that these are minimum system requirements. I have not had a core 2 duo for some time, but I recall that the performance was not that good at that time, and this was CS5.5, or so. If you are going to use this machine, be sure to work at lower playback resolutions until you can afford a more powerful computer.
Video editors typically have more powerful systems than the minimum system requirements. Check our hardware forum for details: Hardware Forum
Thanks,
Kevin

Kona 3 [and XENA] for FCP Questions

Is the XENA 2Ke compatible with the Macintosh platform and FCP, and if so which is the recommended version of OSX and FCP?
I have previously read someone stating that you can use this card on both platforms therefor negating the need to purchase a Mac only Kona 3.
I am doubtful of this however your immediate response / confirmation / denial of this is greatly appreciated.
ALSO
Is anyone aware of news relating to an upgrade of the Kona 3 card [ie Kona 4 or a Mac and PC compatible XENA card]?
I am looking at assembling a new HD online capable suite in the next few weeks and am hoping to avoid purchasing ie a Kona 3 card just before the release of [theoretically] a Kona 4 card [possibly at NAB 08]. Being that 4K / Red post are and should be at a premium in the coming months I would like to assemble a post solution that can handle for example a short form 4K online [if possible].
I know I am dealing with a lot of what-ifs but for the investment I need to make I will be asking similar questions to these everywhere I can including the forums such as this.

Anyone / everyone please feel free to comment
Hi Jerry
First and foremost, thank you very much for your detailed reply.
1. Hmmmm. "AJA, is there something in the air too?" [lol].
I just love the thought of new gear and technology... and AJA furthering its hardware support of RED in FCP, looking forward to any NAB developments.
*2. Regarding the Xena-2Ke for Mac.* Just received a reply from AJA Tech Support stating the following:
+"Hi Mitch,+
+The Xena-2Ke is compatible with Mac OSX 10.3.x, 10.4.x and 10.5.x running+
+the appropriate Kona 3 driver.+
+On the other hand A Kona 3 is not compatible with Windows.+
+Let us know if you have more questions.+
+Thank you,+
Rudy
+Rudy Van Ko+
+AJA Video Technical Support+
+Email: [email protected]+
+Phone: 530-271-3190+
+AJA Video Systems+
+443 Crown Point Circle+
+Grass Valley, CA 95945"+
Interesting...
*3. Monitoring 2K?* What are you using to monitor 2K, HD Jerry?
Many guys in similar situations to myself over here in Australia are using Apple Cinema Displays with a Decklink HD-Link Pro box for monitoring. Obviously the 30" Cinema Display has the resolution to handle 2K monitoring but is it suitable in your view?
Realistically I am looking at offering an immediate service based mainly on a HD offline / online workflow. I would however like to future proof myself as best I can by assembling hardware that can handle 2K with reliability, stability and to reasonable levels of accuracy and complexity.
*Up until now [NAB] I've been looking at something in the order of the following setup:*
*Online Machine*
Two 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core)
8gb RAM
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3GB/s
NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 1.5GB (Stereo 3D, two dual-link DVI)
One 16x SuperDrive
AirPort Extreme card (Wi-Fi)
Apple wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Wireless Keyboard
*Third Party Card / Hardware IO:*
Kona 3 with K-Box
*Offline Machine:*
Two 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core)
4GB (2 x 1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3GB/s
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
One 16x SuperDrive
AirPort Extreme card (Wi-Fi)
Apple wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Wireless Keyboard
Monitoring:
JVC DT-V24L1DGE 1920x1080 Pro HD LCD with 1:1 pixel monitoring / no scaling and all the regular / required inputs and features
*BUP / Archival Purposes / Proofs:*
Lacie D2 Ext Blu Ray Burner
Storage:
Caldigit's HD Pro OR G Technology's G Speed OR G Speed es [though not sold on G Speed es - great price point but really doesn't have the sustained drive speeds. Great for online SD, Pro Res and possibly basic DVCPro HD / HD Sequences etc. [www.g-technology.com states "Two G-SPEED eS units and the G-Tech PCIe RAID controller support all of the above plus 10-bit, 1080i/60 HD playback in RAID 0 or RAID 5 mode."]. Will be looking into the new Apple owned Promise RAIDs too; your thoughts on these? Unfortunately I don't really have the budget for SANman, X-Serve, Fibrejet etc solutions at present but for the right job, that would obviously change.
I really appreciate the idea of how you are working with 2K, though your description was not really that detailed it definitely sounds smooth. Do you think that I am heading in the right direction in your opinion with the gear I have in mind, and is the minimum 2K future proofing concept I have a valid one?
Thanks for taking the time to read this post, and hopefully reply to some or all.
Anyone / everyone please feel free to comment.

Best Setup for FCP X

So...I have a Mac Pro, Dual 2.8 Quad Core with 24 GB of RAM. I beefed up the video card and the RAM just for FCP X....but I swear, it runs painfully slow. I'm about to boot this thing and go for portability. Will the high end Macbook Pro deliver what I think FCP X should be like?

I feel your pain sszeto. I still have my old MAC Clone. Remember the UMAX 900? I have that in my sailboat and I'm still using it. Kinda useless but it does the job.
I still feel that going SSD is the way to go. Clinton might back me up on this one.
I believe, and still do that desktop are faster than laptops. I have a 4 year old i7 920 Windows desktop that is faster in Photoshop than my late 2011 MB Pro. I just went portable because I travel too much and I hate lugging around my desktop.
My suggestion: try out the SSD on your Mac PRO and if you feel that it's not helping, when you get your new MB Pro, you can install that SSD in your MB Pro and really see the difference in speed.
Makes sense?

FCP X is loading and loading with the colour wheel revolving for ever for the past few days.

FCP X is loading and loading with the colour wheel revolving for ever, for the past few days.
FCP X was working fine in my new 15" Mac book pro (Retina display with Mountain Lion 10.8.2) for the past one month. Now a days, each time I try to open the FCP X, the same non-stop colour wheel is rotating, trying to restore one of my project. It continues even for hours together. Finally I am force quiting the application.
How do I come out of it ? Will I be able to recover my project. I didn't do any backup in particular.
Is backing up on the regular basis is required?
I tried the following guidance by Apple,
In the Finder, hold down the Option key and choose Library from the Go menu.
In the Library folder that opens, go to Application Support/Final Cut Pro.
Drag the Layouts folder from the Final Cut Pro folder to the Trash.
Still my problem is continued
Help me

This is my pet checklist for questions regarding FCP X performance - you may have already addressed some of the items but it's worth checking.
Make sure you're using the latest version of the application - FCP X 10.0.5 runs very well on my 2009 MacPro 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon with 16 GB RAM and ATI Radeon HD 5870 1024 MB. I run it with Lion 10.7.5.
First, check that you have at least 20% free space on your system drive.
For smooth playback without dropping frames, make sure 'Better Performance' is selected in the FCP X Preferences - Playback Tab.
If you have not already done so, move your Projects and Events to a fast (Firewire 800 or faster) external HD. Make sure the drive's formatted OS Extended (journalling's not required for video). You should always keep at least 20% free space on the Hard Drives that your Media, Projects and Events are on.
Check the spec of your Mac against the system requirements:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/specs/
Check the spec of your graphics card. If it's listed here, it's not suitable:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4664
If you are getting crashes, there is some conflict on the OS. Create a new (admin) user account on your system and use FCP X from there - if it runs a lot better, there's a conflict and a clean install of the OS would be recommended.
Keep projects to 20 mins or less. If you have a long project, work on 20 min sections then paste these into a final project for export.
If your playback in FCP X is not good, I strongly recommend you use ProRes 422 Proxy - it edits and plays back like silk because the files are small but lightly compressed (not much packing and unpacking to do) - but remember to select 'Original or Optimised Media' (FCP X Preferences > Playback) just before you export your movie, otherwise it will be exported at low resolution.
The downside of 'Proxy' is that it looks awful. DON'T use Proxy when you're assessing things like video quality - especially focus.
If you have plenty of processor power, for the ultimate editing experience, create Optimised Media - most camera native files are highly compressed and need a great deal of processor power to play back - particularly if you add titles, filters or effects. ProRes 422 takes up much more hard drive space but is very lightly compressed. It edits and plays back superbly.
Personally, I work with XDCAM EX and h.264 from a Canon DSLR. Both of these run fine with my system, but I do transcode multicam clips.
Hide Audio Waveforms at all times when you don't need them (both in Browser and Storyline / Timeline). They take up a lot of processor power. (Use the switch icon at the bottom-right of your timeline to select a format without waveforms if you don't need them at the moment, then switch back when you do).
Create folders in the Project and Events libraries and put any projects you are not working on currently, in those folders. This will help a lot. There's a great application for this, called Event Manager X - for the tiny cost it's an invaluable application.
http://assistedediting.intelligentassistance.com/EventManagerX/
Unless you cannot edit and playback without it, turn off Background Rendering in Preferences (under Playback) - this will help general performance and you can always render when you need to by selecting the clip (or clips) and pressing Ctrl+R.
The biggest single improvement I saw in performance was when I upgraded the RAM from 8 GB to 16.
If none of this helps, you might have incompatible or corrupt media or project files. Move ALL your Events and Projects to temporary folders so that FCP X doesn't find them on launch. If it launches OK, re-introduce the Events and Projects one at a time, re-launching each time, so that you can track down the corrupt or incompatible files.
Andy

Quad-Core or 12-Core for FCP 7.0.3 and AfterFX?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for